Law and Order
Professor’s name
Student’s name
Course
Date
Law and Order: season 9 episode 10
The TV series Law and Order hints at the focus of the show from the title itself-order. Most would classify this series intents as being concerned with the “system,” and ultimately showing how the U.S. legal system is succeeding in criminal justice. More directly, Laura Quinn, states how Law and Order’s structure revolves around the notion that the “Underlying assumption is that the U.S. criminal justice system works. The ponderous opening statement about the criminal justice system is a claim for its efficacy. A significant number of episodes are devoted to exposing and punishing those who disgrace the system” (131, The politics of Law and Order). While this may be a consensus around most, even in today’s courts, there’s evidence of wrong verdicts, foul play, and misconduct by prosecutors. Furthermore, when looking at season 9 episode 10, “Hate,” it becomes apparent how the show isn’t as rosy to the system as most people think. The verdict the judge arrives at, the unethical investigation, and the actions carried out by the prosecutor-Jack- stress how the system in Law and Order isn’t functioning correctly and how many illegal components in legal procedures are universal within it.
To begin, let’s start by defining ethics and appropriate behavior in the system of law. The American Bar Association states the functions, and the prosecutor’s primary duty is, “To seek justice within the bounds of the law, not merely to convict.” The key phrase here is “not merely to convict,” noting at how it’s the lawyer’s job only to accuse those who should be charged and not to bring in their grudges into the court. The disconcern with this notion can be seen when Jack chooses to put Tom Willis on trial because of his distaste for him and his practices. Even though there is no evidence and no cooperation with Tom Willis and the murderers, the prosecutor chooses to accuse him of making him pay for speaking his ideals. While most of his comments aren’t moral and ethical, he still has the freedom to express them under the first amendment. This illustrates how, in this case, a prosecutor in the show isn’t acting appropriately by legal standards. It’s crystal clear that what Jack is doing isn’t going to work because he’s accusing him of somethings his innocent for. His partner Abbie voices this concern with sayings like, “he’s not worth gutting the first amendment over” and “I wish we could shut him up too, but as officers of the court our constitutional obligation is to protect not stop even the most controversial speaker.” This further stresses how it’s a consensus that Jack is playing with the boundaries of the law and trying to punish a man who hasn’t committed any crime. Through Jack’s diction, one can also see how his hatred is the pure motive of putting Tom Willis on trial, not for actual legal wrongdoings. When talking about the kids involved in the murder, Jack abruptly changes the topic and states, “I want Tom Willis.” Jack channels his hatred for Willis by trying to get him in trouble legally. Someone who abuses their power and relationship with the law to hurt others simply because of a conflict of beliefs is no man of the “system.”
Despite this claim, most people find Jack’s attack on Tom Willis to be completely justifiable in the case of the law. Although when taking a look at prosecutorial guidelines, Gershman states: “Prosecuting crimes against victims has inherent advantages for prosecutors, but also has special challenges that require a prosecutor to reconcile conflicting duties to the public and the accused. Focusing on a prosecutor’s relations with a victim illuminates the prosecutor’s duty to serve justice, particularly where a prosecutor’s capacity to evaluate a case objectively might be compromised by her close alignment with a person who has been victimized by crime” (560, Prosecutorial Ethics). This notes how the prosecutor(Jack) has an advantage that can potentially be used in the wrong manner. Although he has no close alignment with Willis, he still evaluates the case subjectively, interjecting his feelings into this case and ends up punishing him solely because of his distaste for him. The definition for vengeance is a: punishment inflicted or retribution exacted for an injury or wrong. Jack’s actions were a punishment on Willis because of his wrongdoings and preachings that he didn’t agree with. Taking this into mind, “A call for vengeance is clearly out of bounds and would be condemned by all courts” (572, Prosecutorial Ethics). Due to this, it yet again shows the prosecutor’s actions are unethical and not in line with the system.
Works cited
Bennett L. Gershman, Prosecutorial Ethics and Victims’ Rights: The Prosecutor’s Duty of Neutrality, 9 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 559 (2010),
Quinn, L. (2012), The Politics of Law and Order. Journal of American & Comparative Cultures, 25: 130–133. doi:10.1111/1542-734X.00020